ORDER : This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: “...to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the Impugned Demand Notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015 dated 25.08.2025 issued by the 3 rd respondent is illegal high handed capricious violate Articles 14, 19(1), 21 and in violation of the guarantee under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play and consequently direct the respondents to set aside the demand notice dated 25.08.2025 while directing the authorities to consider the two representations made by the petitioner on 17.09.2025 and pass fresh demand notice and pass...” 2. Heard Mr. Y.Srinivasa Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. M.V.B.S.Narasimha Anudeep, learned counsel for the petitioner on record and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 4 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondent No.5. 3. The facts of the case in brief as stated are that the petitioner was granted quarry lease for building stone and road metal over an extent of Ac.2-00 guntas in Survey No.85/1 of Mallemandugu Village, Khammam Rural Mandal, Khammam District for a period of 10 years commencing from 16.10.2007 vide proceedings No.512/Q3/2010, dated 01.06.2010 issued by respondent No.4. Pursuant thereto, a work order was issued vide proceedings No.512/Q3/2010, dated 01.06.2010 for commencement of quarry for the period commencing from 16.10.2007 to 15.10.2017. The respondent No.2 vide memo No.2344915/Vg/2024, dated 27.01.2024 instructed respondent No.4 to undertake inspections of quarry leases pertaining to granite and other minor minerals, including stone and metal, limestone slabs, gravel, etc., and to initiate appropriate action against leaseholders, who are found to be in violating the rules. Pursuant to the aforesaid instructions, the respondent No.4 issued directions under Memo No.265/Vigilance/2024, dated 27.01.2024, pursuant to which M/s. Geo Tech Surveys conducted an ETS survey on the petitioner’s quarry on 30.01.2024 and prepared a draft ETS map dated 17.02.2024. Placing reliance on the said draft ETS map, the respondent authorities issued a Show Cause Notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015, dated 17.02.2024 alleging the petitioner had excavated and transported 3,95,464 metric tons of mineral in violation of Rule 26(2) of the Rules, without supplying a copy of the ETS survey map, on which the allegations are found. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation on 01.03.2024 before respondent No.3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted explanation on 01.03.2024 before respondent No.3. Without considering the petitioner’s explanation, the respondent authorities issued another Show Cause Notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015, dated 24.02.2024 on the very same set of allegations as contained in the earlier notice. Pursuant to the 2 nd show cause notice, the petitioner submitted explanation on 04.03.2024. Without considering the explanations submitted by the petitioner to the 2 nd Show Cause Notice, the respondent authorities issued the demand notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015, dated 12.03.2024 directing the petitioner as follows: "to pay penalty of Rs. 69,02,97,855/- (Rs.7,60,63,455/- normal seigniorage fee+ Rs.61,42,34,400/- 5/10 times penalty) for the quantity of 450462 MTs of Stone and Metal excavated more than the permitted quantity within the quarry leased area violating Rule 34 (1) of the Rules and the quantity of 719745 MTs of Stone and Metal excavated from outside the leased area by encroachment violating Rule 26 (2) of the Rules along with Rs.6,08,50,764/- and towards Permit feet 80% on Seigniorage fee, Rs. 2.28,19,037/- towards DMP 30% on Seigniorage Fee, Rs. 15,21,269/- towards SMET @ 2% on Seigniorage Fee and Re. 15.21.269/- towards IT 2% on seigniorage fee" 4. Aggrieved by the action of respondents in issuing the demand notice dated 12.03.2024, the petitioner filed W.P.No.10908 of 2024 seeking the following relief: "...to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondent No 3 in issuing a demand notice No 5266/Q/2015 dated 12.03.2024 demanding seigniorage fee and penalty without considering the explanations dated 04.03.2024 and 05.03.2024 submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notices dated 17.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 respectively on the ground that the explanation was not submitted within the specified days mentioned in the show causes notices as illegal arbitrary and in violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same and further direct the respondent No 3 to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner pursuant to show cause notice dated 17.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 respectively and pass such other order or orders.” 5. This Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 disposed of W.P.No.10908 of 2024 with the following observations: “6. This Court vide order dated 24.04.2024 disposed of W.P.No.10908 of 2024 with the following observations: “6. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the respondents have not considered the explanations, dated 01.03.2024 and 04.03.2024 submitted by the petitioner pursuant to the show cause notices, dated 17.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 and not furnishing the copies of the documents to enable the petitioner to submit a detailed explanation. Non- supply of the documents, which are the basis for issuance of show-cause notice, revised show-cause notice as well as demand notice amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned show cause notices dated 17.02.2024 and 24.02.2024 and consequential demand notice No.5266/Q/2015, dated 12.03.2024, are set aside. The respondents are directed to furnish the documents, which are the basis for issuance of show-cause notice, revised show- cause notice within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to enable the petitioner to submit an explanation and the petitioner is permitted to submit an explanation within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter. On receipt of such explanation, the respondents are directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules for recovery of the amounts payable by the petitioner, within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter. Till such time, the respondents are directed not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance of the demand notice, dated 12.03.2024.” 6. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities issued a fresh show cause notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015 dated 18.06.2024 calling upon the petitioner to furnish reply within fifteen (15) days as to why further action should not be taken in respect of the allegations made therein. Subsequent to the notice issued on 18.06.2024 the petitioner filed explanation on 03.07.2024 stating that no survey document forming the basis of the said show cause notice had been furnished to the petitioner, even though the very absence of such material was the reason, for which the earlier demand notice was set aside by this Court. Subsequently the said documents were furnished to the petitioner, and upon perusal thereof, the petitioner observed that the survey was not conducted based on the original survey carried out at the time of execution of the lease deed. Subsequently the said documents were furnished to the petitioner, and upon perusal thereof, the petitioner observed that the survey was not conducted based on the original survey carried out at the time of execution of the lease deed. Furthermore, the survey appears to have been undertaken using DGPSMAP methodology, which is liable to vary from the physical or DPS survey. In light of the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 19-07-2024 to the respondent no. 3, enclosing the original survey conducted at the time of executing lease requesting that a fresh physical survey be conducted. The said representation is, however, still pending consideration. 7. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities, without considering the petitioner’s representation, issued the impugned the demand notice bearing No.5266/Q/2015, dated 25.08.2025, to which the petitioner submitted an explanation on 17.09.2025, stating that the stone and metal supplied by the petitioner were delivered to Government works from time to time and not to any private parties and that the authorities have already recovered the seigniorage fee from the respective work bills and credited the same to the Department of Mines and Geology, Government of Telangana. The petitioner further requested the authorities to kindly consider that the entire demanded quantity has been covered by the seigniorage fee recovered by the concerned Engineering Department from the contractors' work bills, and to close the proceedings in view of the One Time Settlement (OTS) introduced by the Government through G.O.Rt.No.60, Industries & Commerce (M.I) Dept., dated 12-03-2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner made another representation dated 17-09-2025 to respondent No.4, requesting that the One Time Settlement (OTS) Scheme, as introduced by the Government through the G.O. However, no action was initiated on the petitioner’s representations. 8. Thus, questioning the impugned notice issued by respondent No.3 and on the inaction of the petitioner’s representation dated 17.09.2025, the present writ petition is filed seeking appropriate directions. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology on instructions of Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Khammam, submitted that after receipt of demand notice, the petitioner vide letter dated 17.09.2025 filed a representation and had given consent for opting OTS scheme as per G.O.Rt.No.60, Industries and Commerce (M.I.) Department, dated 12.03.2025. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology on instructions of Assistant Director of Mines & Geology, Khammam, submitted that after receipt of demand notice, the petitioner vide letter dated 17.09.2025 filed a representation and had given consent for opting OTS scheme as per G.O.Rt.No.60, Industries and Commerce (M.I.) Department, dated 12.03.2025. Learned Assistant Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner supplied the mineral stone and metal to various contractors, who had executed Government works, and Seigniorage fee and other charges have been deducted from the work bills raised by the contractor and remitted to Mines and Geology department and the petitioner had submitted certain documents in support of his claim. Accordingly, the office of the Assistant Director of Mines and Geology, vide letter No.5266/Q/2015, dated 23.09.2025 requested the concerned Engineering Departments to confirm the genuineness of the supply of the mineral from the leased area and particulars of Seigniorage fee being deducted from the work bills of the contractors so as to reconcile the same and arrive at differential quantities for levy of revised demand. Thereafter, the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad vide Memo No.3007077/MR/2025, dated 19.11.2025 issued Standard Operation Procedure (for short “SOP”) for reconciliation of Government supplied quantities. Hence, the letter No.5266/Q/2015 dated 04.12.2025 was issued by the office of the Assistant Director, Mines and Geology requesting the lease holder to furnish certain additional documents, as per the SOP issued by the Director of Mines & Geology, Hyderabad and after receipt of the required documents, the same will be reconciled and further action would be initiated as per Rules. Thereafter, the petitioner would be allowed for quarrying only after Government supplies are reconciled and revised demands issued and the petitioner has to clear the dues if any. Thereafter, the lease ID of the petitioner will be unblocked and e-Trans option will be enabled only after the demand is closed or on payment of 20% of the total demanded amount, as envisaged in OTS orders vide G.O.Ms.No.60, Industries & Commerce (M-1) Department, dated 12.03.2025. 10. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the supplies made by the petitioner to the Government Departments are still at the reconciliation stage, the petitioner’s representation dated 24.11.2025 to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology to enable e-Trans option on his lease ID may be considered. 11. 10. In reply, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the supplies made by the petitioner to the Government Departments are still at the reconciliation stage, the petitioner’s representation dated 24.11.2025 to the Assistant Director of Mines & Geology to enable e-Trans option on his lease ID may be considered. 11. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines and Geology submitted that the petitioner’s representation dated 24.11.2025, which is pending consideration would also be considered at the time of reconciliation along with reconciliation of the supplies made and of the Seigniorage charges adjusted pertaining to pending Government works. 12. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Mines & Geology would further submit that some documents are still to be submitted by the petitioner and if the documents are placed before the concerned authorities, the respondents would verify the same with the Government Departments, wherever the road metal has been supplied. 13. In that view of the matter, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the petitioner to submit the required documents as requested by the respondent authorities as expeditiously as possible. Thereupon, the respondent authorities shall consider the same and upon reconciliation, the petitioner shall comply the conditions stipulated and if the petitioner opts for One Time Settlement under G.O.Ms.No.60, Industries & Commerce (M-1) Department, dated 12.03.2025, the petitioner shall also comply the conditions stated there under. Thereafter, the respondent authorities shall consider the petitioner’s representation dated 24.11.2025 and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. 14. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications if any pending in this petition, shall stand closed.